What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4739930?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Esala Aloaina, Losi Aniseko and Litia Aniseko at Unit/Flat 3, 339

How much money was awarded in case 4739930?

Admin Charge For Change Of Tenant: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To April 2024: $207.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739930?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10216920-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4739930?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Esala Aloaina, Losi Aniseko and Litia Aniseko at Unit/Flat 3, 339

How much money was awarded in case 4739930?

Admin Charge For Change Of Tenant: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To April 2024: $207.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739930?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10216920-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 339 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4739930 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739930 — net $986.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 17 April 2024	$3,000.00	Rent to 17 April 2024
Carpet cleaning and wall repairs	$552.00	Carpet cleaning and wall repairs
Water charges to April 2024	$207.22	Water charges to April 2024
Admin charge for change of tenant	$207.00	Admin charge for change of tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$986.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$986.66

Order

The tenancy of Esala Aloaina, Losi Aniseko and Litia Aniseko at Unit/Flat 3, 339 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited, at midnight on Wednesday 17 April 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6493309-011) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited immediately.
Esala Aloaina, Losi Aniseko and Litia Aniseko must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $986.66 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 17 April 2024. There was no appearance by any of the tenants.
The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 1 June 2023 to 1 June 2024.
On 16 November 2023 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenants’ obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

On 11 September 2023 the landlord served notices to remedy damage to the property and for removal of a dog. The landlord’s application relied on these notices. A notice to remedy rent arrears was issued on 26 March 2024, at which point the arrears were $1,500.00.
The notice of hearing sent to the tenants notified them that termination was sought. The landlord emailed the tenants on 18 March 2024 and 16 April 2024, reminding them about the hearing and advising the grounds on which the landlord was seeking termination, including for rent arrears.
Although not included in the landlord’s application, which was not formally amended, I am satisfied that the tenants did receive notice that the landlord was seeking termination today on various grounds, including termination for rent arrears.
When a landlord applies for termination for breach and at the time of the hearing the rent is more than 21 days in arrears, the Tribunal must determine the matter as if an application has been made under section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Section 55 of the Act provides that the Tribunal must make either a termination order or a conditional termination order.
The current rent arrears are equivalent to 4 week’s rent, the weekly rent being $750.00. It is appropriate to terminate the tenancy pursuant to sections 56(2) and section 55(1)(a) of the Act.
The landlord says a dog has been at the property since September 2023. The tenancy agreement does not permit pets. The landlord served notices to remedy this breach on 11 September 2023, 27 October 2023, 13 November 2023 and 26 March 2024. On 13 September 2023 the tenants said they would remove the dog from the premises by 25 September 2023.
The landlord says the dog is still at the property. In an email on 13 March 2024 following an inspection, the landlord referred to the return of a dog and urine smell, together with new damage that could be dog scratches.
The landlord said the tenant allows the dog to roam free, and it causes disturbance to the neighbours who share a driveway. As shown in the landlord’s photographs, the dog appears to be young and not fully house-trained.
While failure to remove the dog might not have justified termination on its own, when this breach is considered along with the breach of the obligation to pay rent, I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 56(1) of the Act. The dog is not permitted, has caused damage to the premises, and the tenants have had a lengthy opportunity to remove the pet after indicating they would do so. There are also rent arrears at a level which support termination under this section. Are the tenants’ responsible for damage to the premises?
The landlord’s notice to remedy dated 11 September 2023 included photographs of wall damage. The landlord also provided close-up photographs of wall damage and an area where the dog had urinated on hard flooring.
The carpets were cleaned to prevent damage to the underlay. The wall damage was repaired. The total cost to the landlord was $552.00, which is less than the insurance excess (see sections 40 and 49B of the Act).
The tenants are required to keep the premises reasonably clean during the tenancy and not to carelessly damage the premises. The wall damage looks to have been caused carelessly by the tenants and then not properly repaired. I award the carpet cleaning and wall repair cost.

What do the tenants owe for rent and water?

The landlord provided rent records and water invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Is the tenant responsible for a contractor’s call-out charge?
The landlord claimed a call-out charge ($74.75) when the carpet cleaner was unable to gain access to the premises on 14 November 2023. The purpose of the visit was to clean carpets soiled by the dog. In an email the tenant apologised and said the appointment had completely slipped her mind.
There is nothing in the tenancy agreement permitting the landlord to recover the cost of a missed maintenance appointment. The landlord said there was a prior agreement that the tenant would pay any missed callout fees, but I cannot identify an agreement to this effect in the emails and texts.
I also note that the contractor has not provided an invoice to the landlord and, so far as the Tribunal knows, may never do so. I decline to award the call-out fee.

Are the tenants responsible for an administration fee?

The landlord claimed $207.00 for the cost of removing one of the tenants from the fixed term tenancy and dealing with the change of tenant form for the bond.
I consider that this fee is recoverable as an expense pursuant to section 44A of the Act, on the basis that the landlord has consented to one of the tenants “parting with possession” prior to the end of the fixed term on 1 June 2024. An invoice was provided with some itemisation of the expenses incurred, based on a costs schedule emailed to the tenants. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has been largely successful. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739930 — net $986.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 17 April 2024	$3,000.00	Rent to 17 April 2024
Carpet cleaning and wall repairs	$552.00	Carpet cleaning and wall repairs
Water charges to April 2024	$207.22	Water charges to April 2024
Admin charge for change of tenant	$207.00	Admin charge for change of tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$986.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$986.66

Order

The tenancy of Esala Aloaina, Losi Aniseko and Litia Aniseko at Unit/Flat 3, 339 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited, at midnight on Wednesday 17 April 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6493309-011) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited immediately.
Esala Aloaina, Losi Aniseko and Litia Aniseko must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $986.66 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 17 April 2024. There was no appearance by any of the tenants.
The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 1 June 2023 to 1 June 2024.
On 16 November 2023 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenants’ obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

On 11 September 2023 the landlord served notices to remedy damage to the property and for removal of a dog. The landlord’s application relied on these notices. A notice to remedy rent arrears was issued on 26 March 2024, at which point the arrears were $1,500.00.
The notice of hearing sent to the tenants notified them that termination was sought. The landlord emailed the tenants on 18 March 2024 and 16 April 2024, reminding them about the hearing and advising the grounds on which the landlord was seeking termination, including for rent arrears.
Although not included in the landlord’s application, which was not formally amended, I am satisfied that the tenants did receive notice that the landlord was seeking termination today on various grounds, including termination for rent arrears.
When a landlord applies for termination for breach and at the time of the hearing the rent is more than 21 days in arrears, the Tribunal must determine the matter as if an application has been made under section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Section 55 of the Act provides that the Tribunal must make either a termination order or a conditional termination order.
The current rent arrears are equivalent to 4 week’s rent, the weekly rent being $750.00. It is appropriate to terminate the tenancy pursuant to sections 56(2) and section 55(1)(a) of the Act.
The landlord says a dog has been at the property since September 2023. The tenancy agreement does not permit pets. The landlord served notices to remedy this breach on 11 September 2023, 27 October 2023, 13 November 2023 and 26 March 2024. On 13 September 2023 the tenants said they would remove the dog from the premises by 25 September 2023.
The landlord says the dog is still at the property. In an email on 13 March 2024 following an inspection, the landlord referred to the return of a dog and urine smell, together with new damage that could be dog scratches.
The landlord said the tenant allows the dog to roam free, and it causes disturbance to the neighbours who share a driveway. As shown in the landlord’s photographs, the dog appears to be young and not fully house-trained.
While failure to remove the dog might not have justified termination on its own, when this breach is considered along with the breach of the obligation to pay rent, I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 56(1) of the Act. The dog is not permitted, has caused damage to the premises, and the tenants have had a lengthy opportunity to remove the pet after indicating they would do so. There are also rent arrears at a level which support termination under this section. Are the tenants’ responsible for damage to the premises?
The landlord’s notice to remedy dated 11 September 2023 included photographs of wall damage. The landlord also provided close-up photographs of wall damage and an area where the dog had urinated on hard flooring.
The carpets were cleaned to prevent damage to the underlay. The wall damage was repaired. The total cost to the landlord was $552.00, which is less than the insurance excess (see sections 40 and 49B of the Act).
The tenants are required to keep the premises reasonably clean during the tenancy and not to carelessly damage the premises. The wall damage looks to have been caused carelessly by the tenants and then not properly repaired. I award the carpet cleaning and wall repair cost.

What do the tenants owe for rent and water?

The landlord provided rent records and water invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Is the tenant responsible for a contractor’s call-out charge?
The landlord claimed a call-out charge ($74.75) when the carpet cleaner was unable to gain access to the premises on 14 November 2023. The purpose of the visit was to clean carpets soiled by the dog. In an email the tenant apologised and said the appointment had completely slipped her mind.
There is nothing in the tenancy agreement permitting the landlord to recover the cost of a missed maintenance appointment. The landlord said there was a prior agreement that the tenant would pay any missed callout fees, but I cannot identify an agreement to this effect in the emails and texts.
I also note that the contractor has not provided an invoice to the landlord and, so far as the Tribunal knows, may never do so. I decline to award the call-out fee.

Are the tenants responsible for an administration fee?

The landlord claimed $207.00 for the cost of removing one of the tenants from the fixed term tenancy and dealing with the change of tenant form for the bond.
I consider that this fee is recoverable as an expense pursuant to section 44A of the Act, on the basis that the landlord has consented to one of the tenants “parting with possession” prior to the end of the fixed term on 1 June 2024. An invoice was provided with some itemisation of the expenses incurred, based on a costs schedule emailed to the tenants. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has been largely successful. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739930 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 3, 339 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739930 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 3, 339 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

What do the tenants owe for rent and water?

Are the tenants responsible for an administration fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

What do the tenants owe for rent and water?

Are the tenants responsible for an administration fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions